Philosophy of Education
How does this relate to my life?
Orr (1991) talks about the six myths of education. One of those myths being that education makes you a better person. In my profession you cannot advance without a Master's Degree. I don't agree with this at all. Recently there was an Extension Educator position open and there were many qualified applicants that could not apply for this position because they did not have this title. Why is this degree so important? Should experience count for something? We hired someone with a Masters degree who has no experience with 4-H.
Capitalism creates wealth for a few, and poverty for a growing underclass (p.4). With today's economy I believe this more and more. The big 3 motor companies are going bankrupt, but their CEO's are making millions of dollars and they will not feel the effects of bankruptcy like the middle class people will unless the government bails them out. Why do these top executives make so much money? Why do they deserve so much luxury? Orr speaks of real truth in these areas. Tom Petters could be an example of an educated person doing risky things. Orr states that so much corrption comes from very educated people doing risky things.
Critical Pedagogy
This has caused me to look at how I teach my afterschool classes and the youth in my 4-H program. Am I doing this the right way? Am I bias in any way? Am I offering equal access for all? McLaren (2003) states that schools need to empower and self-transform their students. Do I do this in my programming. McLaren has made me stop to look at the school in which my son attends. Is there hegemony in this school? Do our 30.7% Hispanic population have a chance for success after leaving our school? Our children are the result of the institution that teaches them. Are we focusing so much on math and science scores that we are missing out on developing the whole person?
Critical Technology
Computers are a great tool, but can also be very dangerous. More and more youth today experience Cyber-Bullying. Monke (2004) sates that we must help our young people develop moral and ethical strength to avoid abusing the enormous power these machines give them (p. 349).
In my work life technology is very important. However, I did not learn how to use the computer until I was in college. There is not technololgy that I would've learned in elementary, high school or college, that would prepare me for my job today. Of course technology is more advanced today then it was then, but it is always changing and as Monke (1991) states, "Everything a child needs to know about computers in the workforce can be learned in one year in high school." I believe that comment is true!
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monke's Ideas
I apologize for my posts being so long, but it was important for me to reread the articles, summarize them, and then see how they relate to my life.
Monke (2004) believes that computers are a way to enhance education, but nothing can beat the "Human Touch" and hands on experiences that comes with having a teacher present and given youth "real" experiences for learning. Monke believes that we need to ask what kind of learning tends to take place with the computer and what kind gets left out. (p.345).
His example of children learning about trees gives a great visual. Students can learn mountains of information from a computer screen, but do they learn better when they peel the bark back, climb the branches, and actually experience the tree? A computer cannot teach this. A computer is a set of symbols and abstract information that must somehow be moved into a concrete experiences that create interests, new ideas, and learning.
"An excess of information (from the computer) may actually crowd the mind out ideas, leaving the mind (especially young minds) distracted by sterile, disconnected facts, lost among the shapeless heaps of data. (p.346). This information seems to mirror Carr (2008) is Google making us stupid? So much information in does not allow for actually learning to take place. It just takes up room in your head and no deep thinking can take place.
Computers should simulate the learning experience, but not replace the teacher itself. The two together can create a strong learning environment. Monke talks about the Oregon Trail and the understanding that children may have. I have played this game several time and I do not believe that I ever put myself in the place of the pioneers crossing the Great Divide. I think I was just trying to ration my food, be smart with my money, and avoid being attacked by Indians. The connection between the hardships of the pioneers, the reason for them to travel to Oregon, and the greater meaning of the game was never discussed. This was something that we did on the side when our assignments were done.
Monke believes that computers should not be used in the elementary schools. They will become obsolete by the time the kids get to high school. I believe that actually learning should be done in the classrooms, but computers can be used for enrichment.
Everything a child needs to know about computers in the workforce can be learned in one year in high school. Once schools start to implement high cost computers there is a "hidden domino effect" that can happen. Teachers are cut to fund technology, security is beefed up to protect the computers, internet laws for students need to be constructed, children can get into sites that are not good for them, and schools must sacrifice other things in order to provide youth with technology.
Computers can give our youth great power to do dangerous things. Cyber Bullying is a huge issue in the today's world. We must help our young people develop moral and ethical strength needed to resist abusing the enormous power these machines give them. (p. 349).
Monke feels that we must honor the natural development of the child and not concentrate on high technology until high school. Schools that see their job as preparing young people to meet the demands of a technology-driven world merely embrace and advance the idea that human needs are no longer our highest priority, that we must adapt to meet the demands of our machine. (pg 351).
The most daunting problems facing our society are drugs, violence, racism, poverty, the dissolution of family and community, and war, are all matters of human purpose and meaning. Filling schools with computers will not help find the answers to why the freest nation in the world has the highest percentage of citizens behind bars or why the wealthiest nation in history condemns a sixth of its children to poverty. (p.351).
The above paragraph is one of the hardest things for me to swallow and all very good questions. Many of our authors have touched on the fact that we are so focused on science, math, and technology that being good citizens, having morals to be a "good" person, and to know the difference between right and wrong seem to be missed somewhere.
Monke (2004) believes that computers are a way to enhance education, but nothing can beat the "Human Touch" and hands on experiences that comes with having a teacher present and given youth "real" experiences for learning. Monke believes that we need to ask what kind of learning tends to take place with the computer and what kind gets left out. (p.345).
His example of children learning about trees gives a great visual. Students can learn mountains of information from a computer screen, but do they learn better when they peel the bark back, climb the branches, and actually experience the tree? A computer cannot teach this. A computer is a set of symbols and abstract information that must somehow be moved into a concrete experiences that create interests, new ideas, and learning.
"An excess of information (from the computer) may actually crowd the mind out ideas, leaving the mind (especially young minds) distracted by sterile, disconnected facts, lost among the shapeless heaps of data. (p.346). This information seems to mirror Carr (2008) is Google making us stupid? So much information in does not allow for actually learning to take place. It just takes up room in your head and no deep thinking can take place.
Computers should simulate the learning experience, but not replace the teacher itself. The two together can create a strong learning environment. Monke talks about the Oregon Trail and the understanding that children may have. I have played this game several time and I do not believe that I ever put myself in the place of the pioneers crossing the Great Divide. I think I was just trying to ration my food, be smart with my money, and avoid being attacked by Indians. The connection between the hardships of the pioneers, the reason for them to travel to Oregon, and the greater meaning of the game was never discussed. This was something that we did on the side when our assignments were done.
Monke believes that computers should not be used in the elementary schools. They will become obsolete by the time the kids get to high school. I believe that actually learning should be done in the classrooms, but computers can be used for enrichment.
Everything a child needs to know about computers in the workforce can be learned in one year in high school. Once schools start to implement high cost computers there is a "hidden domino effect" that can happen. Teachers are cut to fund technology, security is beefed up to protect the computers, internet laws for students need to be constructed, children can get into sites that are not good for them, and schools must sacrifice other things in order to provide youth with technology.
Computers can give our youth great power to do dangerous things. Cyber Bullying is a huge issue in the today's world. We must help our young people develop moral and ethical strength needed to resist abusing the enormous power these machines give them. (p. 349).
Monke feels that we must honor the natural development of the child and not concentrate on high technology until high school. Schools that see their job as preparing young people to meet the demands of a technology-driven world merely embrace and advance the idea that human needs are no longer our highest priority, that we must adapt to meet the demands of our machine. (pg 351).
The most daunting problems facing our society are drugs, violence, racism, poverty, the dissolution of family and community, and war, are all matters of human purpose and meaning. Filling schools with computers will not help find the answers to why the freest nation in the world has the highest percentage of citizens behind bars or why the wealthiest nation in history condemns a sixth of its children to poverty. (p.351).
The above paragraph is one of the hardest things for me to swallow and all very good questions. Many of our authors have touched on the fact that we are so focused on science, math, and technology that being good citizens, having morals to be a "good" person, and to know the difference between right and wrong seem to be missed somewhere.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Critical Pedagogy the McLaren Way!
As I have reread McLaren I find that I don't agree with many things that he has to say, but then he does cause me to ask many questions about education today.
McLaren (2003) tells us that schools need to promote student empowerment and self-transformation. His parochial education showed empowered students issues of social justice as a means of sustaining , legitmizing, and reproducing dominant classs interests directed at creating obedient, docile, and low-paid future workers (p.70). He then goes on to talk about the Marxist view of schooling, which claims that schools simply reproduce class relations and possibly indoctinate students into becoming greedy young capitalist (p.70). This was a statement that I don't agree with. I do not believe that this is what is happening in our school systems. If a child has aspirations to dream and achieve large goals, this does not make them greedy young capitalist, and the goal of the school would never be to produce low-paid future workers.
Critical pedagogists asks how our everyday commonsense understandings, our social constructions or subjectivities get produced and lived out. In many schools in the U.S. Science and Math is becoming imperative to prepare our youth for "big businesses", but the question is, who is this helping? Who is being hurt from this? What is the relationship between knowledge taught in school and the social class?(p.72). Perhaps this type of thinking is starting to change since the next paragraph talks about the public unlikely to vote for a woman or a black President. That time has come. IN 2008 a black President has been elected.
McLaren refers to hegemony and the dominant culture, the social class in control. That students learn what the dominant culture wants them to learn. The subordinate class actually conforms to the dominant class without being aware of it. Do we question what is taught in our schools? Do we question the curriculum that is shaping the minds of our children? Since the start of this class I have been questioning some of my son's classes. The purpose, the way it is being taught, they style of the teaching. Parents do need to become more involved in what their children are learning.
Is there hegemony in an inner city, predominantly black school? Do they teach that whites are better? Are they taught that they are the subordinate group? Are they taught that they will ultimately be the lower class and struggle to make ends meet? Or, is their curriculum the same as in a white, upper class, suburban school? Are they taught about the discrimination they and their ancestors have endured? All questions that I would not have asked without reading what McLaren had to say.
In Sleepy Eye we have a 30.7% Hispanic population in our school. At one time none of the spanish (Hispanic) traditions were talked about in the school. Over the years I find that the Hispanic kids are doing dances that represent their culture, we are recognizing their holidays, the girls are have Kincineras (not sure how to spell that) and they are inviting their friends, whom are mostly white, to take part in their celebration. My son was just involved in one and it was an awesome experience. Hispanics are becoming proud of their culture and sharing it with the community of Sleepy Eye.
McLaren points out three types of knowledge. Technical knowledge, which is measured by IQ quotients, SAT tests, reading scores, etc. Practical knowledge is acquired through describing and analyzing social situations and is geared toward helping individuals understand social events.This is also a way to evaluate student behavior. The critical educator looks for emancipatory knowledge which helps us to understand how social relationships are distorted and manipulated by relations of power and privilege. It creates the foundation for social justice, equality, and empowerment. (p.73).
I didn't understand this until I turned the page and it talked about how Americans see themselves and how other countries see Americans. We are taught that we are a superior country, justice for all, equal opportunity, the land of the free, the sky is the limit, but how do other countries view us? As a terrorist regime? As a failing country? We only teach our youth the "good" about our country and eliminate telling them anything different. This made me start to believe some of what McLaren had to say.
McLaren claims that empowerment means to not only help students to understand and engage the world around them,but also enable them to exercise the kind of courage needed to change social order where necessary. (pg 85). Can the institution that educates them teach this? McLaren futher states that we must look at the kind of knowlege we construct about women and minority groups in our school text books. Do we promote stereotypical views that reinforce racist, exist and patriarchal attitudes?
Is there a hidden curriculum in schools? Whites are better than blacks. Men are smarter than women? We must make sure that this is not being taught in our classrooms. Will boys have higher SAT scores, will girls be less committed to their careers? Is their sexism in the classroom where boys will work toward the top end jobs and girls will conform to low paying jobs? McLaren says that the hidden curriculum, then, refers to learning outcomes not openly acknowledged to learners. (p.88).
Are we in the process of social reproduction? Will working class students become working class adults? will middle class students become middle class adults? (p. 89) Do you become of a product of what you are taught? As I look at myself, my parents, my friends, for the most part we are all middle class with very few of us who have moved to upper class status.
Jacques Lacan suggests that ignorance is not a passive state, but rather an active excluding from consciouness.(pg. 92). We are ignorant to what we don't know. We are ignorant to what we aren't being taught. We are ignorant because we believe what we are taught and do not question it.
Yes, McLaren has helped me look at education with a critical eye.
McLaren (2003) tells us that schools need to promote student empowerment and self-transformation. His parochial education showed empowered students issues of social justice as a means of sustaining , legitmizing, and reproducing dominant classs interests directed at creating obedient, docile, and low-paid future workers (p.70). He then goes on to talk about the Marxist view of schooling, which claims that schools simply reproduce class relations and possibly indoctinate students into becoming greedy young capitalist (p.70). This was a statement that I don't agree with. I do not believe that this is what is happening in our school systems. If a child has aspirations to dream and achieve large goals, this does not make them greedy young capitalist, and the goal of the school would never be to produce low-paid future workers.
Critical pedagogists asks how our everyday commonsense understandings, our social constructions or subjectivities get produced and lived out. In many schools in the U.S. Science and Math is becoming imperative to prepare our youth for "big businesses", but the question is, who is this helping? Who is being hurt from this? What is the relationship between knowledge taught in school and the social class?(p.72). Perhaps this type of thinking is starting to change since the next paragraph talks about the public unlikely to vote for a woman or a black President. That time has come. IN 2008 a black President has been elected.
McLaren refers to hegemony and the dominant culture, the social class in control. That students learn what the dominant culture wants them to learn. The subordinate class actually conforms to the dominant class without being aware of it. Do we question what is taught in our schools? Do we question the curriculum that is shaping the minds of our children? Since the start of this class I have been questioning some of my son's classes. The purpose, the way it is being taught, they style of the teaching. Parents do need to become more involved in what their children are learning.
Is there hegemony in an inner city, predominantly black school? Do they teach that whites are better? Are they taught that they are the subordinate group? Are they taught that they will ultimately be the lower class and struggle to make ends meet? Or, is their curriculum the same as in a white, upper class, suburban school? Are they taught about the discrimination they and their ancestors have endured? All questions that I would not have asked without reading what McLaren had to say.
In Sleepy Eye we have a 30.7% Hispanic population in our school. At one time none of the spanish (Hispanic) traditions were talked about in the school. Over the years I find that the Hispanic kids are doing dances that represent their culture, we are recognizing their holidays, the girls are have Kincineras (not sure how to spell that) and they are inviting their friends, whom are mostly white, to take part in their celebration. My son was just involved in one and it was an awesome experience. Hispanics are becoming proud of their culture and sharing it with the community of Sleepy Eye.
McLaren points out three types of knowledge. Technical knowledge, which is measured by IQ quotients, SAT tests, reading scores, etc. Practical knowledge is acquired through describing and analyzing social situations and is geared toward helping individuals understand social events.This is also a way to evaluate student behavior. The critical educator looks for emancipatory knowledge which helps us to understand how social relationships are distorted and manipulated by relations of power and privilege. It creates the foundation for social justice, equality, and empowerment. (p.73).
I didn't understand this until I turned the page and it talked about how Americans see themselves and how other countries see Americans. We are taught that we are a superior country, justice for all, equal opportunity, the land of the free, the sky is the limit, but how do other countries view us? As a terrorist regime? As a failing country? We only teach our youth the "good" about our country and eliminate telling them anything different. This made me start to believe some of what McLaren had to say.
McLaren claims that empowerment means to not only help students to understand and engage the world around them,but also enable them to exercise the kind of courage needed to change social order where necessary. (pg 85). Can the institution that educates them teach this? McLaren futher states that we must look at the kind of knowlege we construct about women and minority groups in our school text books. Do we promote stereotypical views that reinforce racist, exist and patriarchal attitudes?
Is there a hidden curriculum in schools? Whites are better than blacks. Men are smarter than women? We must make sure that this is not being taught in our classrooms. Will boys have higher SAT scores, will girls be less committed to their careers? Is their sexism in the classroom where boys will work toward the top end jobs and girls will conform to low paying jobs? McLaren says that the hidden curriculum, then, refers to learning outcomes not openly acknowledged to learners. (p.88).
Are we in the process of social reproduction? Will working class students become working class adults? will middle class students become middle class adults? (p. 89) Do you become of a product of what you are taught? As I look at myself, my parents, my friends, for the most part we are all middle class with very few of us who have moved to upper class status.
Jacques Lacan suggests that ignorance is not a passive state, but rather an active excluding from consciouness.(pg. 92). We are ignorant to what we don't know. We are ignorant to what we aren't being taught. We are ignorant because we believe what we are taught and do not question it.
Yes, McLaren has helped me look at education with a critical eye.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Philosophy of Education as stated by Orr
Orr (1991) proposes ecological literacy for all students (p.7). Can students take what they learn inside a building and apply it to real world situations? Can they understand how everything they learned is intertwined and meant to work together? Are we teaching our youth how to live well and sustainably on this earth?
Orr questions if knowledge and education makes us better? He talks about the six myths of education. The third myth states that learning makes us better people. He feels this is a myth because the Germans were the best educated people on earth, but their education did not serve as an adequate barrier to barbarity (p.1). Education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom. Does education give you success? "The planet does not need more successful people, but what it does need are peacemakers, healers, restorers, story tellers, and lovers. People who will fight to make our world more habitable and humane. This had nothing to do with success. (p.4). Are we focusing to much on facts, figures, and technical things, rather than the arts, imagination, and creativity?
Is ignorance a solvable problem? Orr believes it is not. The more advanced in knowledge we become the more ignorant we become. An example of this could be a medication to reduce cancer cells. It may reduce the cells, but does it hurt other organs? We won't know until we see the results. This is an example of ignorance. We don't know what we don't know. The more advanced we become in technology the more we learn. But are there ramifications to this? Will we find out years down the road where we went wrong?
Orr states that he believes we are living in a disintegrating culture. Capitalism creates wealth for a few, and poverty for a growing underclass. This in return will cause a break down in society which will lead to drugs on the street, violence, and the most desparate kind of poverty. Our culture does not cultivate vision, imagination, or aesthetic or spiritual sensitivity. It does not encourage gentleness, generosity, caring or ocmpassion. (p.4). Can this be taught in school? Is what we are plugging into the heads of our children going to benefit them in the future?
What must education be for? Orr strongly urges that youth be taught Environmental Education so they understand that they are a part of a natural world. That what they do will have an effect on other things. The goal of education should be to develop one's person. Students need to take the information they have been given and use it in a responsible way. So much corruption comes from very educated people who do risky things. Internet scams, creating viruses, and hacking are just a few examples of negative knowledge.
How does a child learn? If information is delivered in a lecturing manner than a child can become passive. Does learning only take place indoors? Can a child take what is taught in the classroom and be able to make generalizations? How will they use this information? Will they leave school being a better person? Do what they learn have anything to do with the world?
Is what is being taught in our classrooms being questioned? Should we be questioning it? Orr takes us on a journey to ask ourselves these very questions. Are our educational systems preparing our children to be good citizens and ecologically aware?
Orr questions if knowledge and education makes us better? He talks about the six myths of education. The third myth states that learning makes us better people. He feels this is a myth because the Germans were the best educated people on earth, but their education did not serve as an adequate barrier to barbarity (p.1). Education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom. Does education give you success? "The planet does not need more successful people, but what it does need are peacemakers, healers, restorers, story tellers, and lovers. People who will fight to make our world more habitable and humane. This had nothing to do with success. (p.4). Are we focusing to much on facts, figures, and technical things, rather than the arts, imagination, and creativity?
Is ignorance a solvable problem? Orr believes it is not. The more advanced in knowledge we become the more ignorant we become. An example of this could be a medication to reduce cancer cells. It may reduce the cells, but does it hurt other organs? We won't know until we see the results. This is an example of ignorance. We don't know what we don't know. The more advanced we become in technology the more we learn. But are there ramifications to this? Will we find out years down the road where we went wrong?
Orr states that he believes we are living in a disintegrating culture. Capitalism creates wealth for a few, and poverty for a growing underclass. This in return will cause a break down in society which will lead to drugs on the street, violence, and the most desparate kind of poverty. Our culture does not cultivate vision, imagination, or aesthetic or spiritual sensitivity. It does not encourage gentleness, generosity, caring or ocmpassion. (p.4). Can this be taught in school? Is what we are plugging into the heads of our children going to benefit them in the future?
What must education be for? Orr strongly urges that youth be taught Environmental Education so they understand that they are a part of a natural world. That what they do will have an effect on other things. The goal of education should be to develop one's person. Students need to take the information they have been given and use it in a responsible way. So much corruption comes from very educated people who do risky things. Internet scams, creating viruses, and hacking are just a few examples of negative knowledge.
How does a child learn? If information is delivered in a lecturing manner than a child can become passive. Does learning only take place indoors? Can a child take what is taught in the classroom and be able to make generalizations? How will they use this information? Will they leave school being a better person? Do what they learn have anything to do with the world?
Is what is being taught in our classrooms being questioned? Should we be questioning it? Orr takes us on a journey to ask ourselves these very questions. Are our educational systems preparing our children to be good citizens and ecologically aware?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)